yes of course.. it is not literal in its meaning.. but only in the course of practice, experience and realisation one may understand under realised teacher.. otherwise it may be very misguiding. Yes it is very late zen story but arousen from the very firm experience of realised ones.

Matylda wrote:yes of course.. it is not literal in its meaning.. but only in the course of practice, experience and realisation one may understand under realised teacher..

Even with practice and experience, if one truly believes that all sentient beings awaken and/or are liberated at the same time as one's personal awakening or liberation, they are deluded and tragically confused.

Matylda wrote:otherwise it may be very misguiding. Yes it is very late zen story but arousen from the very firm experience of realised ones.

Though obviously this was not their experience, ergo said statement cannot be interpreted literally.

When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

Otherwise when the first Buddha was liberated all beings would have been liberated and there would be no samsāra and no need for the buddhadharma whatsoever.

Matylda wrote:yes of course.. it is not literal in its meaning.. but only in the course of practice, experience and realisation one may understand under realised teacher..

Even with practice and experience, if one truly believes that all sentient beings awaken and/or are liberated at the same time as one's personal awakening or liberation, they are deluded and tragically confused.

Matylda wrote:otherwise it may be very misguiding. Yes it is very late zen story but arousen from the very firm experience of realised ones.

Though obviously this was not their experience, ergo said statement cannot be interpreted literally.

When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

Otherwise when the first Buddha was liberated all beings would have been liberated and there would be no samsāra and no need for the buddhadharma whatsoever.

When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

This is what you may believe in, but it is NOT what zen masters taught.. therefore considering the source of information I would say that this kind of faith is invalid. Otherwise we should agree that all the gret zen masters of the last 1500 were deeply mistaken.

Matylda wrote:When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

This is what you may believe in

If by "what you may believe in" you mean to say what is taught in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism then yes, that is the view I stand by.

Matylda wrote:but it is NOT what zen masters taught..

Perhaps not what some Zen masters taught. But I wouldn't know, and nor do I really care since I don't practice Zen, nor does it interest me particularly. Plus this is the Mahāmudrā sub-forum.

Matylda wrote:therefore considering the source of information I would say that this kind of faith is invalid. Otherwise we should agree that all the gret zen masters of the last 1500 were deeply mistaken.

They very well may be if that is what they believe. But, that's not my business.

Matylda wrote:When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

This is what you may believe in

If by "what you may believe in" you mean to say what is taught in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism then yes, that is the view I stand by.

Matylda wrote:but it is NOT what zen masters taught..

Perhaps not what some Zen masters taught. But I wouldn't know, and nor do I really care since I don't practice Zen, nor does it interest me particularly. Plus this is the Mahāmudrā sub-forum.

Matylda wrote:therefore considering the source of information I would say that this kind of faith is invalid. Otherwise we should agree that all the gret zen masters of the last 1500 were deeply mistaken.

They very well may be if that is what they believe. But, that's not my business.

Yes, you are absolutely right.. it is mahamudra forum. However I responded in support of Malcolm's post where zen/chan was mentioned by name. And since this teaching about awakening is part of traditional zen cannon I just added how it may be approached from the perspective of zen practice and result. I did not intend to mingle with mahamudra things

I respect deeply your engagment in dharma practice of mahamudra of which I have no any idea, and forbid me my post, however many vajrayana dharma keens go to zen forum as well... so I hope I was not annoying anyone

Matylda wrote:When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

This is what you may believe in

If by "what you may believe in" you mean to say what is taught in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism then yes, that is the view I stand by.

Matylda wrote:but it is NOT what zen masters taught..

Perhaps not what some Zen masters taught. But I wouldn't know, and nor do I really care since I don't practice Zen, nor does it interest me particularly. Plus this is the Mahāmudrā sub-forum.

Matylda wrote:therefore considering the source of information I would say that this kind of faith is invalid. Otherwise we should agree that all the gret zen masters of the last 1500 were deeply mistaken.

They very well may be if that is what they believe. But, that's not my business.

Good to hear your comments, understanding different approaches can be very useful. Seems like much of the problem comes from words/ labels/ descriptions...such as awakening, enlightenment, non duality.... Let's hope we can at some point Recognize our own experience without feeling the need to describe it... Going back to original question which I posed, I am happy to hear that Mingyur Rinpoche and Loch Kelly will be meeting to resolve the question of authorisation...

Yes, you are absolutely right.. it is mahamudra forum. However I responded in support of Malcolm's post where zen/chan was mentioned by name. And since this teaching about awakening is part of traditional zen cannon I just added how it may be approached from the perspective of zen practice and result. I did not intend to mingle with mahamudra things

I respect deeply your engagment in dharma practice of mahamudra of which I have no any idea, and forbid me my post, however many vajrayana dharma keens go to zen forum as well... so I hope I was not annoying anyone

JAC72 wrote:This is a pretty typical way to talk about whether the host can get enough people to attend for a teacher to accept an invitation to spend 5 days including travel. You can easily look at the fees on Loch’s website which are reasonable and similar to other dharma teachers.

I have never heard of such arrangement being required by any Dharma teacher that I know of, up to and including HH Sakya Trizin. HH Dalai Lama is a different case, because, as a former head of state, he travels with an entourage.

In my opinion, apart from travel expenses, no Dharma teacher worth their salt should have any expectation of making a profit from their teachings. Making a profit from teaching Dharma is extremely gauche. Should students wish to make donations out of their devotion to this or that teacher, this is fine. When students understand that they must collaborate together to cover expenses and so forth in order to invite a teacher, this is also fine. But to set fees with the notion that teaching 1-5 students is too few in order to spend 5 days working with them is extremely saddening.

Now of course, if one is teaching inside of an institution like Omega or Kripalu, etc., these companies set a fee structure out of which a teacher will be paid. But the idea that someone decides to teach students based on whether there are "enough" students, especially in the case of teachings derived from the Tibetan and other traditions which have traditionally circulated in small groups, is exceedingly strange.

JAC72 wrote:
2. Loch is a wonderful person who has mainly done clinical social work in New York City with the severely mentally ill, the homeless and families of 9/11, where he was a first responder.

Being a Dharma teacher has a different set of qualifications than does being a wonderful person, etc. The latter is not necessarily commensurate with the former.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

krodha wrote:When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

You are speaking from experience, right?

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Mods, since this thread seems to be turning into a "Let's All Hate On Loch Kelly" thread, perhaps it could be moved to a more appropriate forum?

I don't hate Loch Kelly. I have never met him.

I was responding to some facts which are available to anyone, since someone brought up his career.

And in any case, my lack of sympathy towards "spiritual workshop" culture is well known. These teachings, sadly have no lineage to speak of, and will never last beyond the lifetime of their promulgators, whether or not they obtain the "endorsement" of this or that famous Lama, Hindu Guru or western self-proclaimed "awakened master."

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

I was responding to some facts which are available to anyone, since someone brought up his career.

And in any case, my lack of sympathy towards "spiritual workshop" culture is well known. These teachings, sadly have no lineage to speak of, and will never last beyond the lifetime of their promulgators, whether or not they obtain the "endorsement" of this or that famous Lama, Hindu Guru or western self-proclaimed "awakened master."

That's really great. I still think the thread should be moved, but it doesn't really matter.

There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

I was responding to some facts which are available to anyone, since someone brought up his career.

And in any case, my lack of sympathy towards "spiritual workshop" culture is well known. These teachings, sadly have no lineage to speak of, and will never last beyond the lifetime of their promulgators, whether or not they obtain the "endorsement" of this or that famous Lama, Hindu Guru or western self-proclaimed "awakened master."

That's really great. I still think the thread should be moved, but it doesn't really matter.

It would be a better idea to the delete the thread in its entirety, since this is a forum for discussion of Buddhadharma, and not Milanese stews.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

krodha wrote:When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

You are speaking from experience, right?

Speaking from experience that I'm not liberated even though other masters have been? Certainly. That is your experience as well.

As for awakening, that is different than liberation. Yet still, when one is awakened, all beings are not awakened. The entire notion is absurd.

If you can show me your "being", then I will show you my "liberation".

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde